Re: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern

Ben Hutchings
2013-10-07T20:48:01Z

On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 09:10 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 05:19:46PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-10-06 at 08:02 +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > > In fact, in the current design to address the quota race decently the
> > > drivers would have to protect the *loop* to prevent the quota change
> > > between a pci_enable_msix() returned a positive number and the the next
> > > call to pci_enable_msix() with that number. Is it doable?
> >
> > I am not advocating for the current design, simply saying that your
> > proposal doesn't address this issue while Ben's does.
>
> There is one major flaw in min-max approach - the generic MSI layer
> will have to take decisions on exact number of MSIs to request, not
> device drivers.
[...

No, the min-max functions should be implemented using the same loop that
drivers are expected to use now.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html